This last week, the Legislative Research Council sent out a letter on proposed language for a ballot measure to make South Dakota political primaries just like California’s, via a proposed amendment to the South Dakota State Constitution:
2022CANickReidOpenPrimariesLRCComments by Pat Powers on Scribd
The letter was sent to former state legislative candidate Nick Reid, who came in a distant last running as an independent in 2018 for the South Dakota House of Representatives in District 33. Now, he apparently thinks that creating open primaries is the solution to his woes.
*insert groan here* Really? I thought South Dakota spoke pretty loudly on this measure just a couple of years ago?
Voters rejected Amendment V — Establish Nonpartisan Elections — in South Dakota on Tuesday. The “No” vote is up by 11 points with all precincts reporting.
That was a pretty strong rejection in 2016, despite hundreds of thousands put into the effort from out-of-state sources, as I’d noted back then:
What if that was all erased? What if there were no party labels, and you could clear most of the field early – instead of letting them compete at the finish line, and you only had to choose between the last two?
Well, for starters, millionaires and billionaires would have a far easier time buying political races, as they could simply just start opening a checkbook for their hand picked candidates, and not have to contend with pesky political party activists who might be backing candidates because of ideology.
You can very quickly buy a lot of name ID with a million dollar television blitz. But the party apparatus has always served as an organizational counterweight, providing a strong level of support that money can’t buy.
And now it looks like they’re back to make South Dakota elections more like California’s.
As I’d noted back then, even hard left website Daily Kos pointed out that it has been disastrous for that state:
Supposed “good-government” reformers naïvely believed that eliminating partisan primaries would somehow crank down partisan gridlock by forcing office-seekers to moderate their views in order to win. Not only has that not happened, but voters have repeatedly been denied the opportunity to vote for the party of their choice thanks to debacles like these. It’s long past time for proponents to acknowledge their mistake and advocate for a return to proper primaries—and proper democracy..
Nice. And Nick Reid wants South Dakota to vote on sticking it on our state constitution… just a couple of years after we rejected it once?
Here we go again.
Pat – Are you seriously claiming that parties, at least in their current configuration, act as a filter for special interests? Oh no, my friend. They’re not a filter. If anything, they’re a direct funnel. That’s what happens when political monopolies exist.
I haven’t studied Nick’s proposal yet, but I have studied Nick enough to know that he doesn’t put forward half-baked ideas. He’s one of the most thoughtful citizen activists I’ve ever met. I look forward to learning more about this.
You’re saying is that California has a good system?
As the chair of a third party, I’m a bit surprised you would not be in opposition, since it means libertarians would effectively be toast, and discarded in June, as opposed to November.
Personally, the proposal makes me a lot of money, but personally, I also think it’s dumb and no one is asking for it, except for those who want to (try to) buy elections.
They are trying to erode the integrity of the election system. They won’t quit pushing this one, and if this passes, there will be another, different attack on the the election process. Don’t think this is about fixing a problem or making the system better.
Interesting take, Dave. If you’ve got the time, I’d love to hear you expand on how you figure this would negatively impact “the integrity of the election system”. I can sure see it weakening political parties and THEIR impact on the election system. But the election system itself?
First, Democrats will have to run a primary even if they are the only candidate from their party. They don’t have the resources for both.
Second, In a super majority state like South Dakota, it will have the effect of reducing the number of Democrats on the general election ballot. There will be legislative districts where the top two vote getters will be the Republican. This will depress statewide Democrat turnout.
Third, this suppress the voices of 3rd parties as it will eliminate 3rd party candidates being on the general election ballot (except for an occasional State House race).
Fourth, like California, it will rig outcomes to the majority party and ultimately lead to bad governance. Under the current scenario, everyone gets to voice a vision in the general election. Under this scenario, those alternative voices will be hear less.
This stuff does not belong in our constitution!! I think they are trying to weakem the constitution by adding all these things that belong as legislation.
The blame for that, Springer, lies soundly with our legislators, who have failed to honor the will of the people.
I do not believe the will of the people is for open elections.
Then you should leave SD. Direct democracy is part of our identity.
South Dakota’s vote process must be audited immediately.
No hand waiving.
Real verification of integrity ..
How about in situ, video recorded and locally witnessed vote tallies?
Count local, report the number.
Long over due for the legislators to take a good look at initiative and petition reform.
Troy said it very well in his post stating why this idea, being advanced by Mr. Reid, is a terrible idea. This proposal and the amendment establishing a so called independent redistricting commission were both soundly beaten in 2016, if I am not mistaken. We will have to work again to defeat these proposals that will clearly make our election process more difficult to comprehend, not easier. Even worse, it is being put in the constitution which is a distortion to the way a constitution should be organized.